Baldy wrote:I think the only way that argument would make sense would be if riding a bike was the only possible form of exercise available to the people who dont like wearing a helmet.[flameproof helmet off]

you imply in this statement that cycling is only for exercise

No, I was referring to the argument that helmet laws make people unhealthy.

And yes, all cycling is exercise. Just like walking at any speed is exercise.

How about cats crossing the road - here's one in a high-vis helmet, must make it extra safe!

So we get the leaders we deserve and we elect, we get the companies and the products that we ask for, right? And we have to ask for different things. – Paul Gildingbut really, that's rubbish. We get none of it because the choices are illusory.

I am new migrant, arrived here a few months ago. Back in China, I ride all the time on bicycle, no problems. Footpath is good.

But apparently here I have to use helmet. Well, I no like.

So I will continue to ride without helmet. Stuff silly Australian capitalist pigs!

That's pretty racist. I'm surprised coming from a moderator.

I don't know CT very well but even I know that is her take on a little bit of light humour and has nothing to do with what you outlined for crying out loud...................... I found it to be very funny to be honest and fitted well within the confines of humour about this thread topic

I think Padrone and Sky Moves Sideways have been put off this now that theres only one focal point. Maybe the best thing the mods could have done here.I still think its daft to claim that helmets are preventing people from taking up cycling because of the danger that it implies, when cycling is inherantly risky whils ten random people can have 2 different interpretations of the road rules. This includes drivers and cyclists.Surely we need to address the issues rather than the perceptions surrounding safe cycling. Take this as an example:TO: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland

The petition of citizens of Queensland draws to the attention of the House deficiencies in the current overtaking laws in that motorists may come dangerously close to a cyclist while overtaking and at considerable speed, posing an undeniable risk and yet breach no law.Your petitioners therefore request the House to enact legislation to modify existing regulations requiring that a motorist maintain a minimum safe distance of one metre between their vehicle and a cyclist whilst overtaking. Such a measure will strengthen current laws with respect to cyclists. This proposal, by providing clear boundaries, will better serve the interests of motorists and cyclists alike.Furthermore, this proposal would also reflect the fact that it is not necessary for a motorist to collide with a cyclist in order to endanger either life or health; an anomaly that must be addressed if the government is to reduce congestion and promote cycling as a viable alternative means of transportation.I acknowledge the importance sustainable green initiatives, and due to ever increasing environmental awareness, more Queenslanders are now seeing cycling as a positive way of reducing their carbon footprint and minimizing congestion. We question how long such enthusiasm will last while the current ambiguous legislation remains unchanged. A minimum distance of one metre has the potential to maintain this momentum, as well as contributing towards the Governments Q2 initiatives, helping more Queenslanders to "get their 30 each day".

Ive spoken with 3 cops, customers who most likely are drivers who dont cycle, and there is a very real confusion out there. One of the cops was on cyle patrol in the CBD too BTW. This can be applied to every state and territory in Oz with drivers and cyclists becoming increasingly frustrated with each other, and some want to take away one i the few peices of saftey available to us? How about more definitive road rules, possible optional bike rego ( yes another mine field) with rider training courses that are government subsidised, compulsory defensive driver taining as a partnof the licensing process?... Dont start with helmets for gods sake

Had to repost rather than edit with doing this on the fone.I meant to say... Optional bike rego (maybe with a resulting car rego discount) with those that do, being entitled to subsidised rider training...Seems reasinable to me

The comments I get from work mates is that they wouldn't do what I do (commute to work on a bicycle) because it's too dangerous to ride on the road. I've never heard anyone say that wearing a lid is what's stopping them from riding.

I think that dedicated bikepaths like the excellent M7 cycleway would make people feel safer and encourage more people to ride their bikes.

I'm all for trying to change peoples attitudes towards cyclists on the road, but it seems a little like trying to push $#!+ up a hill.

I think if people felt safer riding on the road then alot more would do it. Groundbreaking stuff hey

leeh wrote:introducing a Compulsory High Visibility Clothing Law. For everyone within 1 metre of a road.

So a pedestrian would need one to cross the road?

Yes, if a Compulsory High Visibility Clothing Law existed, then pedestrians would need to wear High Visibility (HV) Clothing to cross the road and motorists would need to wear HV Clothing to enter and exit the car. It WOULD save lives. If the Compulsory aspect of that life saving law offends you, why apply Compulsion to the wearing of helmets?

If it wasn't helmets, they would be bitching about sweaty clothes. And if they aren't sweating, then they're not riding hard enough to do anything for their fitness anyway. Far too many comparisons to Europe where everything is five seconds away by bike, and there it's about transport not fitness.

One of the things I've been kicking myself for (because its not "my real job") is failing to keep proper records and copies of the various cycling related studies and the statistics relating to various modes of transport in various locations.

I do try to read a reasonable quantity of the original studies (although no-one could accuse me of re-doing the data!) but without keep records of where/when it all becomes heresay. Except for the odd exception which "proves" the other 99.999% of studies are wrong - these are waved continuously by the lunatics at the fringes.

Perhaps this thread could at least try to capture various reports and references to studies? At least between the adhomien attacks and petty bickering

twizzle wrote:2.5km/day average is NOT the 30 minutes the health people keep banging on about.

it's about the highest in the western world. what are you taking about?

Not every person in The Netherlands cycles every day.

From some friends of mine who have lived in the Netherlands, they tell me that most commuters ride abot 5-10 kms each way to work. But this is about 30+% of the population. So a very big slab of the population do ~10kms per day. That's pretty good for incidental exercise, especially as most school children would be in this group as well.

The equivalent average distance cycled by all people in the UK is 0.2 kms and for USA is 0.1 kms. In Austraia this figure would probably be the same as USA, despite the alleged 'boom' in cycling.

Any last responses before this thread gets cleaned up a bit? I'll be removing off-topic posts from this thread shortly (within 12 hours). Anything which is not discussing helmets, the laws pertaining to them or safety thereof will be sent to post-purgatory.

Since this is a single-issue thread, please try to keep it on track.

Cheers,Graeme

Update on this: I've now split off the comments which were well off topic. If you can justify to the mod team why those comments should be reinstated, we'll do so. Otherwise, let them rest in peace please folks.

[/Mod-helmet]

Think outside the double triangle.---------------------Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it ....

UPDATE: New section for helmet and other safety related topics, so if you have a new topic, they they can be discussed in this new sub forum. (so multiple helmet threads - preferably different content - are ok.

Wearing a helmet SHOULD be mandatory, seriously why would you not wish to wear a helmet !!!

Whats wrong with wearing a helmet, it keeps your loaf safe when and if you fall. Which would you prefer a smashed head and being spoon fed by your parents and not able to go to the toilet by yourself or bouncing back up and in a bad case having to buy a new one.

Anyone who says it should NOT be mandatory, I think has never had a serious fall or crash or seen someone who has...

No helmet on a push bike is like saying no leathers on a motor bike flying down the freeway....

If the laws had remained to the individual weather he/she brought a helmet and wore one I'm not sure if today it would have influenced me to go out and purchased one (It may have I don't know). Since it's been mandatory and I now wear a helmet for me slapping it on my skull when riding is no longer an issue that decision was made for me. However should the decision to make wearing a helmet no longer mandatory for me the wearing would continue and when needed a new helmet purchase because I don't see it as such a big issue for me. I don't look at the helmet as a safety device that protects the head I see it more as a device that I can place HiVis 3M reflective tape making me more visible and mount my AY-UP's so that there is my reason to continue wearing one even if the laws did change making it riders choice.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.